Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
The events that led to the storming of the Capitol buildings last week have garnered attention from just about every news organization across the planet. Pundits and politicians have weighed in on both sides regarding whether President Trump’s words and actions need to be held accountable for the damage to America’s democratic institutions as well as the five people who have since died as a result of the events that occurred on January 6, 2021. Recently, University of Connecticut’s Richard Ashby Wilson, the Gladstein Chair and Professor of Anthropology and Law and an expert on hate speech and incitement on social media shared his perspective in an Op-Ed published in the Los Angeles Times. It’s a thoughtful, methodical, and excellent piece outlining why he believes, in his expert legal opinion, that President Trump crossed the line and now deserves to be held accountable for his crimes. This is a burning topic, and if you are a journalist looking for objective and expert opinion on this topic – then let us help. Richard Ashby Wilson is available to speak with media about this issue – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Exploring the direct link between drug abuse and the internet
Drug overdoses account for a staggering number of deaths in the United States. In 2017 alone, more than 70,000 U.S. citizens died from opioid overdoses, a number that eclipses the death toll due to traffic accidents, gun violence, or HIV in the same year. Among the academic community, media and national organizations such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there is a growing consensus that the internet plays a key role in enabling access to illicit drugs in America. As far back as 2005, the DEA referred to the internet as an “open medicine cabinet; a help-yourself pill bazaar to help you feel good.” But until now, the jury has been out about whether online platforms actually drive substance abuse among internet users. Research by Anandhi Bharadwaj, vice dean for faculty and research and Roberto C. Goizueta Endowed Chair in Electronic Commerce, along with doctoral candidate Jiayi Liu 22PhD, casts compelling new light on this issue. Their paper, Drug Abuse and the Internet: Evidence from Craigslist, was published in March 2020. By using data from Craigslist, one of the largest online platforms for classified advertisements, the researchers found a significant uptick in drug abuse in areas where Craigslist had become active in the last decade or so. Launched in San Francisco in 1995, Craigslist is a location-specific site that has been spreading to different U.S. cities in a staggered fashion since 2000. As the site has grown, so too have the number of illicit, user behaviors that exist in tandem with the many positive services it offers. Among these are prostitution and the sale of controlled or illicit drugs. The internet: a pipeline for narcotics Historically the sale and purchase of illegal drugs has happened in physical spaces—streets and urban areas prone to certain boundaries and limitations, not to mention the risk of arrest or potential violence. The internet has changed the game in two key ways. First, there is the simple mechanism of buyer-seller matching. Dealers and buyers transact online, which is more straightforward, faster and cuts through many of the risks associated with physical interaction. Simply put, it’s easy to buy drugs online. Second, there is the issue of anonymity. Research has documented how human beings behave differently when we believe our identity is shielded from others. We are prone to take more risks under the cloak of anonymity. Working off these two premises, Bharadwaj and Liu hypothesized that the internet not only facilitates the sale and purchase of drugs—it must also proactively spur supply and demand. To put this to the test, they documented the U.S. cities and counties where Craigslist has become operational since 2000 and then analyzed three other key variables: total number of people admitted into drug treatment facilities in different counties between 1997 and 2008, county-level drug abuse violations, and number of deaths caused by overdose per county. Eager to understand how this new access to drugs online might also be impacting people at a demographic and socioeconomic level, the researchers merged this data with statistics on age, ethnicity and poverty from the U.S. Census Bureau. Additionally, the authors compiled information about income and unemployment, crime and arrests from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the FBI respectively. What they found was stunning. Not only is there a marked increase in drug-related treatments (14.9 percent), violations (5.7 percent) and deaths (6.0 percent) wherever Craigslist becomes operational in a city or county; the momentum of increasing drug abuse also continues to grow over time in that area. And that’s not all. Economic disadvantages—poverty, unemployment and lower standards of education—are typically associated with a higher risk of substance abuse. But the findings suggest that in fact it’s the wealthier, higher-educated groups—especially among whites, Asians, and women—that are more likely than others to engage in drug abuse once Craigslist starts operating in an area. In fact, they conclusively found an uptick in this kind of behavior where crime and drug abuse had been less prevalent previously. In other words, where drugs are becoming readily available online, there is a dramatic increase in new and first-time users. If you are interested in learning more or if you are a journalist looking to cover this research – then let our experts help. Professor Anandhi Bharadwaj is the Vice Dean for Faculty and Research and the Goizueta Endowed Chair in Electronic Commerce and Professor of Information Systems, Operations Management. To arrange an interview with – simply click on her icon today.
What will the extradition of Meng Wanzhou mean for relations between Canada, China, and the U.S.?
There is the rule of law, and there’s politics – but what happens when you are a country like Canada stuck in the middle of an ugly legal battle between China and America? This Monday, in Vancouver – a hearing is underway that will see one of the world’s titans victorious and the other, probably quite angry. Legal arguments at the B.C. Supreme Court in the extradition case of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou may stretch into next year. Crown lawyer Robert Frater told the court Wednesday that lawyers for both sides will propose a new schedule later this month that would bring the hearings to a close in early 2021 at the latest, instead of this fall. The Unites States wants Canada to extradite Meng over allegations she misrepresented the company’s relationship with Skycom Tech Co., putting HSBC at risk of violating U.S. sanction against Iran, a charge both she and Huawei deny. Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes dismissed the first phase of arguments last week by Meng’s lawyers who claimed the case should be thrown out because the U.S. allegations against her wouldn’t be a crime in Canada. Global News - June 03 It has been a long and drawn out process and will likely stretch into this year, and odds are patience is wearing thin. Can any of the countries expect retaliation and what would that look like? Is the United State right seeking extradition of this official? Will a change at the Whitehouse see this effort dropped? And what are the underlying issues at play that may be attributing to this drama? If you are a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include comparative politics and international relations theory. Glen is an expert on this subject and is available to speak to media regarding this topic– simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
The protests inspired by the tragic death of George Floyd have now touched every state in America. The protests have dominated the news and the world has been watching, sometimes in shock. Jennifer E. Cobbina is an associate professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. She has authored books on police protests and is highly regarded as an expert on these issues. Recently, she was interviewed about police tactics, policies and how they might be adding fuel to the fire as opposed to de-escalating the tensions among protestors. Jennifer Cobbina, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University, told Insider that protest policing in the 1960s and 1970s was "based on the philosophy of escalated force in which increasing violence on the part of protesters was met with increasing force from police. This approach was primarily aggressive and confrontational in nature." "We see protest police resorting to this strategy" in the ongoing George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests, she said, even though such tactics "exacerbate tension between police and protesters." Cobbina suggested police adopt the negotiated management approach that was favored from the mid-1970s until the 1990s. This response protects the right to free speech, tolerates some disruption, de-escalates tension, and avoids high levels of police force unless it's absolutely necessary. This would allow demonstrators and police departments to "decrease disruptiveness from protesters and limit the need for police violence," she said. June 02 Insider.com If you are a journalist covering the protests occurring across America and various responses by police and authorities when handling them – let our experts help with your story. Jennifer E. Cobbina is an associate professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. She is an expert in the areas of race, crime, policing, as well as protest movements. Professor Cobbina is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.
While a huge focus is on health and mortality during the coronavirus outbreak, not to be forgotten are those who are grappling with death from natural causes, diseases, accidents and crime. Funerals and visitations are the customary means of support friends and loved ones — but restricted travel and social distancing poses challenges. Here are suggestions about grieving from Candi Cann, Ph.D., associate professor in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core of the Honors College and author of “Virtual Afterlives: Grieving the Dead in the Twenty-first Century”; and Bill Hoy, clinical professor of medical humanities and author of “Do Funerals Matter: The Purposes and Practices of Death Rituals in Global Perspective.” Q: Funerals and visitations are such a time of hugs, hand-holding, prayers, closeness — simply being there. How might travel restrictions, social distancing and concerns for personal health interfere — and how can family and friends be supportive? CANN: I think live-streaming of funerals is a great option and allows people to be present from a distance. Most companies also offer virtual guestbooks where one can leave a teddy bear or flowers, light candles, etc., online in honor of the person. Many cemeteries are also moving online so that each gravestone will have a corresponding virtual memorial, filled with the deceased person's playlist, videos, pictures and memories. Of course, as with all technology, the capability of funeral homes varies from business to business, but my guess is that from an industry perspective, we are going to see a jump in virtual and online offerings as the funeral industry tries to stay relevant and contemporaneous. Also, if presence is important, one can choose disposal options that allow for the return of the deceased into the home, such as being cremated into cremains, or made into a diamond that one wears, or a record that one plays. You can insert cremains into the vinyl and make a record, or a glass sculpture with the cremains mixed into the glass. So, you don't have to be separated from the dead. HOY: I agree that live-streaming may have to suffice, but our experience shows it is a poor second choice. From time immemorial, we have seen that physical presence is vital, and I think that is what is so alarming to me about some of the current discussion in our culture. I was taking care of AIDS patients in Los Angeles in the 1980s when we saw some of the same disenfranchisement of grief, requiring direct cremation of the body and in some cases, forbidding the gathering of people in funeral rituals. It did not turn out to be a psychosocially sound practice and is creating a high level of concern on the part of my clinical colleagues. Q: Have there been times in history when this has been an issue as well when it comes to contagious disease? Have people taken safeguards before? HOY: Two notable examples were the 1918-19 Influenza Epidemic — unfortunately misnamed Spanish Flu — and the 2014-15 Ebola crisis in West Africa. In both cases, high numbers of dead coupled with high levels of contagion caused health authorities to create quarantines and eliminate gatherings such as funerals. Recent research out of the Ebola epidemic indicates that at least in some cases, these measures were counterproductive in that “secret” burials took place and those who had money were able to bribe officials to look the other way. I think we want to be especially vigilant to make sure we are being economically and socially just in the policies we put in place. Fortunately, we do have media to help bridge those gaps now that were not available in those other events, so that will almost certainly help. I am going to stop far short, however, of suggesting that media even approaches a point of providing the same psycho-social-spiritual benefit that sharing a space, rubbing shoulders and sharing tears do. CANN: The most recent epidemic in the United States was the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s. By October of 1995, there were over half a million cases of people with AIDS, and many people did not know how to treat or interact with those who were infected. And just this month, a second person was cured of HIV with a stem cell transplant. I have lots of faith in our scientists and that they will be able to create an effective vaccination or cure for COVID-19. Q: Besides finding new or different ways to express support and love to others, what about oneself? We hear about self-isolation – what about self-comfort and self-care in other ways? HOY: This is a great time for self-reflection. What I am doing for myself are the things I recommend to others. Besides being vigilant about what I eat and getting out in the fresh air, I am taking care of myself by limiting my exposure to media. I have not been a big user of social media anyway, but I recommend to folks to be very careful about that because the COVID-19 misinformation is rampant. Instead, I check the National Institutes of Health website once each day for scientific updates, and I have taken all the news update alerts off my phone. Instead, I am trying to give more time to talking with family and friends by phone and video conferencing, journaling and reading. Of course, like other professors, I am spending time talking with students and getting ready to take my classes online next week. In my personal Bible study time, I decided I would spend some time looking at Scripture passages that address fear and have particularly enjoyed hearing God’s perspective on this. CANN: I think one of the hardest things about death is that life goes on without the dead. The birds keep chirping, the flowers keep blooming, people keep being worried about the most mundane matters — and that's difficult when a part of our world has stopped. But this is also what is beautiful about death. It forces us to see life all around us — its fragility, its constancy and its beauty. So, for me, self-care in grief is talking about death, talking with others about the one we lost and living again — in honor of the person who died who doesn't get to be here living anymore. As we embrace life, I strongly recommend that people reach out to friends and family. Social distancing does not need to mean social isolation. I'm also going on regular walks and spending time outside. We need to stay healthy and in shape during this time. Some people are finding it fun to do group-gaming and discovering new ways to spend time with family and friends either virtually in games or via video. Catholic churches are offering drive-through Eucharist and confession, Protestant churches are live-streaming their services and youth groups, Islamic mosques are live-streaming prayers and Buddhist temples are live-streaming meditation sessions. ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 17,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 90 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions.
Hacking billionaires and the link between Bezos, Iran and what’s next for America
It’s becoming the ultimate he said/she said between the ultra-rich and world elite. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is claiming Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hacked his phone via WhatsApp. The motive seems routed to the murdering of the Washington Post’s journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, as the billionaires debate and deflect what actually happened, the event should be a warning sign of what could be on the horizon. America is still on guard and expecting retaliation in one form or another from the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, and online attacks and targeting cellphones could be the preferred method from America’s enemies abroad. “We should expect attacks from Iranian hackers or those sympathetic to their cause who appear to be civilians without nation state sponsorship will hit low level targets on the basis of ideological/national pride,” says Michigan State University’s Thomas J. Holt. “There will likely be nation-state sponsored attacks though it is unclear how quickly they will launch or how effective they may be.” This is an area that is familiar with American military and intelligence circles, Holt further explains. “Historically the U.S. has been involved in cyber-attacks that are able to severely affect Iranian capabilities, such as Stuxnet. Their counterattacks have been less public and seemingly less effective. However, they’ve already begun as with that web defacement against a US government website reported last week that appears to have Iranian ties or origination.” And as America waits and watches... What are the obvious and perhaps not so obvious approaches to breaching American cyber-security that we can expect? Will it be app based? Will the general public be a target or is it in the best interests to hit higher- and more visible properties? And if Jeff Bezos and all of his resources are vulnerable – is there any true way to ensure anyone is safe online? There is a lot to be explored as this story progresses and if you are a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Thomas J. Holt is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose research focuses on computer hacking, malware, and the role of the Internet in facilitating all manner of crime and deviance. Professor Holt is available to speak with media about these issues – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
It’ll be early mornings and long nights for just about anyone involved in covering, watching or taking part in the impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump. With an impeachment trial, there is process, debate, strategy and rhetoric. The goal for Democrats will be a guilty verdict that will remove a sitting President from office. Some experts aren’t sure if this monumental event will have any troubling repercussions on Trump’s campaign for re-election this fall. “We did see some minor impacts of impeachment in the past,” says Matt Grossmann, professor of political science and director of MSU’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. “We’re talking pretty minor effects. It’s hard to see it making a big difference in what happens come November. I certainly don’t think you can either count him out or say that he’s going to cruise to victory. I think we’re going to see a competitive presidential election.” And when it comes to the details of removal from office and the difference between a criminal act and what an actual impeachable offence is according to the constitution - seems to be getting lost on most inside and outside of the Senate. “I wrote months ago that one side would argue that President Trump had to commit a crime to be removed from office while the other side would say the opposite,” says Brian Kalt, professor of law at Michigan State University. “This back-and-forth happens in every impeachment, and the parties switch sides depending on who’s on trial with little regard for what the Constitution really states. The Constitution and 200 years of precedent make it extremely clear that impeachment and removal do not require a crime to have been committed.” Are you a journalist covering the impeachment trials? Our experts can help explain every angle of this process, the potential outcomes and the consequences for both sides arguing for the removal of a sitting president and how it will impact the upcoming election in November. Brian Kalt is a professor of law and the Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University. He is an expert in constitutional law of the presidency, presidential pardons, impeachment, succession and the 25th Amendment. Matt Grossmann is an associate professor of political science and the director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. His expertise includes American politics, political parties and campaigns and he has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post and other media outlets commenting on these issues. Both Brian and Matt are available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on either expert’s icon to arrange an interview.
If Iran counterattacks on-line – what should we expect and what are the likely targets?
Since the drone ordered attack and killing of Iran’s Qassem Suleimani, American authorities have been waiting for the promised retaliation from Iran. Though embassies and properties abroad — especially in the Middle East — are on heightened alert, it could be in cyberspace where the first strike takes place. The Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin from its National Terrorism Advisory System. “Iran maintains a robust cyber program and can execute cyber attacks against the United States,” the alert said. “Iran is capable, at a minimum, of carrying out attacks with temporary disruptive effects against critical infrastructure in the United States.” Another bullet point noted that “an attack in the homeland may come with little or no warning.” Shortly after, hackers claiming to be affiliated with Iran took over the Web site of the Federal Depository Library Program, an American government agency that distributes government publications, and inserted a picture of Trump being punched in the face, with blood dripping from his mouth. “Martyrdom,” the accompanying message read, was Suleimani’s “reward for years of implacable efforts. With his departure and with God’s power, his work and path will not cease, and severe revenge awaits those criminals who have tainted their filthy hands with his blood and the blood of the other martyrs of last night’s incident.” The hackers signed off with an additional threat: “This is only [a] small part of Iran’s cyber ability! We’re always ready.” It was a sophomoric attack on an obscure federal agency, but those last two sentences are unassailable. January 06 – The New Yorker Michigan State University’s Thomas J. Holt is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice and a renowned expert in the areas of hacking and cybercrime. He shared his opinion on what could be next from Iran. “We should expect attacks from Iranian hackers (or those sympathetic to their cause) who appear to be civilians without nation state sponsorship will hit low level targets on the basis of ideological/national pride,” says Holt. "There will likely be nation-state sponsored attacks though it is unclear how quickly they will launch or how effective they may be. Historically the US has been involved in cyberattacks that are able to severely affect Iranian capabilities, such as Stuxnet. Their counterattacks have been less public and seemingly less effective. However, they’ve already begun as with that web defacement against a US government website reported Sunday that appears to have Iranian ties or origination.” What comes next, what gets hit and when – has a lot of people watching and waiting – and if you are a reporter covering this topic, that’s where our experts can help with your questions, stories and ongoing coverage. Thomas J. Holt is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose research focuses on computer hacking, malware, and the role of the Internet in facilitating all manner of crime and deviance. His work has been published in various journals including Crime and Delinquency, Deviant Behavior, the Journal of Criminal Justice, and Youth and Society. Professor Holt is available to speak with media about these issues – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
2020 is going to be the year of politics – let Stephen Farnsworth be the expert you call first when you’re covering it. Like the final act in a great Shakespearean play – 2020 looks to be a year of tragedy, irony, comedy and intrigue. We can expect betrayal, vengeance, protagonists, antagonists, heroes and villains. With impeachment hearings, the DNC primaries, summer conventions, trade deals and the election that promises to be an epic display of speeches and stumping as well as vicious and vitriolic attacks. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on subjects ranging from presidential politics to the local Virginia congressional races. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. He is author or co-author of six books on presidential communication. His latest work, 'Late Night with Trump Political Humor and the American Presidency' shows how late-night political humor, have responded to the Trump presidency. Employing a dataset of more than 100,000 late night jokes going back decades, Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter discuss how the treatment of Trump differs from previous presidents, and how the Trump era is likely to shape the future of political humor. Stephen is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
In this Era of Fake News and Alternate FactsExperts are King
There’s nothing new about fake news. Satirical media outlets such as The Onion have been around for a decade giving us a good laugh. But somewhere in the past 12 months, something changed for the worse. The wool that was being pulled over people’s eyes wasn’t so obvious anymore. Satire and bad humour were replaced by visceral accusations, conspiracies, and smear campaigns. How did we get to this point, and what can be done to stem the tide? A sure sign that we had a problem was a development that was apparent in the last presidential election. New voices were on the national scene branding our traditional media outlets as biased, and elitist. We saw the phrase “mainstream media” become a bigger part of the conversation. Now we have to contend with “fake news.” Unlike traditional journalism fake news outlets deliberately spew wrong information. In an effort to get a story out, mistakes will happen. But in the world of fake news there is no retraction or correction of these mistakes — even when they are exposed as blatantly untrue. Further damage ensues when social media then acts as an enabler as fake news articles get amplified to millions of people, who are clicking away, feeding advertising revenues to these publishers. No matter what your political stripe or where you stood regarding the recent US election, fake news was rampant on both sides spreading false information, invoking anger, and deceiving the public. More recently, a fresher version of fake news has emerged as “Alternate Facts.” A term made famous by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway as she defended the statements made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer who lectured and insisted that the crowd present for President Trump’s swearing-in was “the largest audience ever to It seems that the whole nature of the game has changed almost overnight. Even the White House press gallery isn’t immune to these developments. This week’s Saturday Night Live sketch brilliantly sums up the aversive relationship that we’re seeing develop between the media and the new administration. (Note: For the record, the photo at the bottom is NOT a C-SPAN broadcast. It’s a comedy sketch. It did not really happen. This is NOT Sean Spicer in the photo below — it’s an actor portrayal). Perhaps most ironic for me is how believable fake news can appear to be. A friend of mine, a former investigative journalist commented that “given the outright absurdity of the actual “real” news cycle,” it’s getting hard for people to sort fact from fiction.” Perhaps this says as much about society as it does about media. So Where Does All This Leave Us? Some say the solution is as simple as removing the bias from our news media. The problem is, I know quite a few (real) journalists and they are serious about reporting facts. They work in newsrooms and report the news, they tell stories, but gathering and checking facts are what define them. As they work to a set of professional standards and deliver real information. However, we’re witnessing a massive change in the way that ideas are shaped and communicated to the public. Sadly, the traditional avenues of information flow and the mutual respect that even democratic nation states have had with the media appears to be eroding. There is also a disturbing undercurrent of thought that traditional news organizations are biased, and every outlet is always serving a hidden agenda. Recent events have prompted the need for news organizations to brief their journalists on how to govern themselves in these very “interesting times.” John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards for Associated Press in a recent blog post called for clarity regarding the definition of the so-called “alt-right.” “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them,” writes Daniszewski. Other news organizations are looking at recent events and taking the opportunity to internally brief their journalists. In a recent message to staff, Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler wrote about covering President Trump the Reuters way: “The first 12 days of the Trump presidency (yes, that’s all it’s been!) have been memorable for all — and especially challenging for us in the news business. It’s not every day that a U.S. president calls journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party.” It’s hardly surprising that the air is thick with questions and theories about how to cover the new Administration. So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world. To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. We don’t know yet how sharp the Trump administration’s attacks will be over time or to what extent those attacks will be accompanied by legal restrictions on our news-gathering. But we do know that we must follow the same rules that govern our work anywhere.” Adler goes on to provide a set of rules for the Reuters team that I think are very wise, especially given the current environment. Do’s: Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions. Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one. Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources. Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us. Keep the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles close at hand, remembering that “the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.” Don’ts: Never be intimidated, but: Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us. We may care about the inside baseball but the public generally doesn’t and might not be on our side even if it did. Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too. Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example — and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere. Winning back the public trust — Why Experts Matter Perhaps a way to help reverse this trend is to ask more of our experts within our organizations, and get them to contribute more to these important conversations. It’s about getting our academics, physicians, professionals, and leaders in their respective fields to contribute more to help the media present a more balanced set of perspectives in ways that engage the public. In this new era, it appears that many experts are invisible to the media on a range of big issues such as climate change, economic data, security, crime and healthcare policy. Opinions — not always informed opinions — are taken as fact. People without qualifications are being asked to speak on topics that require years of study, research, and experience. This is why, now more than ever, we need to see a return of intelligence and knowledge to present true facts. Credible Experts Matter Credible sources are vital in helping ensure the proper degree of research has been done. Published work, peer-reviewed studies, as well as policy that has been developed and practised all play key roles in determining an actual expert. Proven credibility cuts through rhetoric. It promotes the delivery and flow of facts as opposed to feeding only one side of a debate. Being Approachable Matters We have to agree that the current sentiment that many have toward traditional institutions and their experts is that they are not providing enough practical information of benefit to the public. The term “ivory tower” comes up frequently to describe environments such as universities and think tanks. While we need these environments of intellectual pursuit they cannot be seen as disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. Transparency Matters Do you know where your information is actually coming from? The flow of money into the development of fake news and so-called “experts” who are pushing agendas is tremendous. We’ve seen it recently with the sugar industry — much like the tobacco industry who literally wrote the book on manipulating and re-wrapping expertise and research in the middle of the last century — setting ideas on nutrition back decades. The market is crying out for a more consistent way to discover and evaluate the credibility of experts. We need a quick and trusted way to review their education, background, publications as well as their affiliations. We need to be able to conduct a front-line background check before we give them the platform to share their perspectives on television, radio, or in print. We need to vet the expert before they reach an audience that relies on the information being communicated to form opinions and make critical decisions that affect their lives. Local News Matters Local media is shrinking. Newsrooms are currently being threatened by constant shifts in both consumption and business models. If we are to promote accurate information and win the war on actual facts, we must make it easier for local journalists to do their jobs. Mainstream media still carries a lot of weight, especially online and television where the nightly news reaches a massive audience. Though the ratings are large, the subject matter doesn’t always resonate with viewers at home. We need to do a much better job helping local media get better access to the experts in our organisations so they can localise issues and tell stories, and do it in ways that everyone can understand. For example, a story on national unemployment numbers has a different context in San Francisco than it does in Flint, Michigan. Climate change is impacting Miami a lot differently than it is in the Great Lake states. In the end, all news is local. Speed Matters News is increasingly a speed game. With social media, a 24-hour news cycle, and the race to be first, time is of the essence. But in this game, haste may not only make waste, the truth may be a casualty as well. Most recently Fox News reported on a violent shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Six people were killed by a lone gunman. Fox News reported that the suspect was of Moroccan origin — that was false. The shooter was in fact of Canadian origin. It wasn’t until the Canadian Prime Minister’s office requested a retraction that Fox walked the story back…but it took almost two full days. In true Canadian fashion, Kate Purchase, Communications Director for Prime Minister Trudeau thanked Fox News. In the meantime, wrong information was shared across multiple platforms and seen by millions of people. This is when having your experts prepared, media-trained, and trusted internally to speak with media is key. In times of emergency and chaos, it may be the words, advice and perspective of a high-level expert that can calm a nervous public, or at the very least, clearly explain a situation and its outcomes with accuracy and trust. So Why Should This Matter to You? If you are focused on building your market visibility and brand reputation, making your organization’s experts more discoverable and responsive to media is as much a function of good public relations as it is a public service. In these days of fake news, alternate facts, and unclear agendas, an unbiased and objective point of view presented by a credible expert may be one of the few remaining pillars of integrity we have left. Experts bring credibility, reliability, and an elevated level of perspective and advice that the public can trust. It’s up to all of us to ensure our thought leaders rise above the fray and help rebuild the trust that is essential to building a civil society. How is your organization working with its experts to respond to these challenges? I’m particularly interested in speaking with communications and media relations professionals in higher education, healthcare and professional services as our team conducts more research in this area. Let us know what you think by sharing below. I read every comment.
